13 comments
Leave a comment »

1. Dan May 26th, 2009 4:35 pm :

   I’d love to hear the stories of you who go to “minister” to people who are saddened by their inability to marry their loved one.

   You can tell them your religious belief trumps their relationship.

   You can tell them Jesus loves them, even if they are going to hell.

   You can tell them it’s more important that your church have tax exempt status than for them to be able to marry.

   You can tell them that you’d rather gays not be able to marry instead the alternative of having awkward conversations with your children when they hear about kids with two dads in elementary school.  We all know that confused children trump civil rights, right?

   Whatever you tell them, and it is your protected right to, do not expect you will present Christianity to be anything less than a bigoted religion.  If I were Christian, I’d want Prop 8 to be associated with anything but Christ, but instead a secular community issue.  Otherwise, you’re melding church law with state law, which isn’t acceptable to anyone who actually believes in America and the separation of powers.

   You know, in some Muslim countries, women are forbidden from showing their faces under their veil.  This law is out of love for Allah, and not out of sexism, if you ask them.  You could probably even come up with some psuedo-secular arguments for the law, such as preventing fornication and adultery, and keeping lust under control.  They could probably even point out statistics that more liberal Muslim countries have higher unmarried pregnancy rates and adulteries.  But in the end, you have a religious law violating personal freedom, any way you slice it. 

   Have fun at the protests.

   With regrets,

   Dan

2. Gordon May 26th, 2009 6:39 pm :

   In Response,

   We are so thankful that God has once again moved on behalf of his agenda in California.  In fact God does have an agenda, and its his intention for society to be sustained in California.  I am a native Californian who is rejoicing today and will be for a while to come; yet it’s a somber celebration seeing that the stakes are intensely emotional for everyone involved.  30 states in America now have constitutional amendments and another 15 have apt legislation to keep marriage between one man and one woman.  The people of California have now successfully carried the ballot measures through 2 times, once in 2000 and again in 2008 - for the definition of marriage to remain as God has ordered it.

3. Dr Michael Brown May 26th, 2009 11:15 pm :

   Dan May,

   Two questions for you:

   Do you believe that any two people who love each other should be able to marry, or do you make exceptions to that rule that others will consider bigoted?

   Are you confusing “Christianity” with the definition of marriage held to by virtually all peoples for all times throughout human history? That is to say, could it be that male-female marriage is actually in the best interest of society (regardless of one’s religious beliefs), which is why no one ever thought of adjusting that definition for thousands of years of human history until the current generation?

4. Dan May 27th, 2009 12:06 am :

   Hi Dr. Brown,

   To answer your first question, I think that if two people love each other, are mutually able to consent, without causing harm to others, then yes, they should be allow to marry.  This of course, will exclude human/animal relationships, adult/child relationships, and incestual relationships (where birth defects are likely).

   I guess the can of worms is opened when a brother and sister ask to be married on the condition they’re sterilized.  Scary thought, isn’t it.  Two brothers asking to get married too would fall under the above definition as well, to my dismay.  I must admit the idea sounds disgusting, but I can’t articulate a logical rational against it besides the grand old “Ewwww” factor which is probably the second most popular reason for Prop 8, right behind religious beliefs.

   Is the “Ewwww” factor enough reason to make something illegal?  Not too long ago, people had a strong aversion to blacks marrying whites, one they couldn’t articulate the reasons for, but just knew it was wrong.  I’m not going to say that incest is morally ok, because it raises my stomach as much as yours, and didn’t seem like a good idea even when Abraham was doing it.

   At the same time, I don’t think the “slippery slope” argument is enough reason to deny marriage to someone who does deserve their right.  For example, each time we give animals more rights, we make it harder for farms to profit, and harder for medical labs to conduct valuable research.  What if we end up giving monkeys the right to forest property? Should we err on the side of too much, or too little freedom?

   I’d say we should err on the side of too much.  I do not think there will be a significant volume of people campaigning for the right to marry their brother or sister, even in places in the South that Jeff Foxworthy likes to make fun of.  The idea of this being a seriously entertained court case does not seem to be as likely as some evangelists would like to think.  In fact, I’ve been looking on Google and am hardpressed to find court cases for this that aren’t mentioned on Christian sites without a source link.  It seems comparable to forbidding the sale of caffeine pills because every once in a while, some yo-yo takes a dare and swallows the whole box and has a heart attack.

   Suppose your fears are correct, and one sets the precedent for the other.  Is it better to have the freedom of millions of gay people to marry, counter balanced by a few incestual marriages?  Or deny both in order to prevent the horror of any incest altogether?  I’d say if it came to that, it would not be ideal, but the benefits to gay people that marriage brings would be worth it.  With any act of increased freedom, there are costs.  More guns lead to more gun related deaths (even if they prevent more, there are kids who wouldn’t have died without them in house).  Having a driving age at 17 instead of 21 leads to more car crashes of teenagers.  Any lawmaker has to look at the cumulative effect of the increased freedom, not focus on the downside.

   As for your second question, I am not confusing Christianity with the “definition of marriage,” (reverse of quotes intentional), because having marriage be the same it has been for thousands of years is completely irrelevant and arbitrary.  With the exception of some cultures, homosexuality has not tolerated very well.  Most cultures in history also haven’t tolerated the idea that women should have 100% of the same rights as men to pursue any type of worklife they please.  The idea that “that’s the way it’s always been done” meaning it’s the right way makes about as much sense as the proverbial woman who cuts the sides off her ham before cooking because her grandmother and mother did it (only to find the original reason was to fit the ham in her grandmother’s small oven)

   The question is if it’s a good idea to have homosexual rights in our society today, not if it was popular 2000 years ago.  In my Psych 101 class in college, research estimated that 3% of men, and a lesser amount of women, are homosexual (10% Kinsey study was found faulty).  Being a minority like that, expecially in countries with less protection of individual rights, would of course result in less of a campaign for gays to marry.  Homosexuality has naturally been repressed in cultures for fear of what is different, not unlike inter-racial marriage.

   It is obvious that the primary motivation to ban gay marriage is coming from a religious viewpoint.  You can’t deny that your faith is the primary motivation of your homosexual-correction movement, or whatever you like to call it.  If it weren’t for the Evangelical and Mormon churches’ massive campaigning and endowments on the issue, the bill wouldn’t have passed at all.

   There is no indication that homosexual marriage is bad for society.  Take incest as a separate issue, as well as Church Tax exemption, and education.  Those are things to be handled in a gay-friendly country with a re-evaluation of the rules.  Maybe the churches do deserve extra protection to not have to marry gays.  I certainly know Rabbis who refuse to conduct inter-religious marriages with no penalty.  There are many people for homosexual marriage that are against adding any more rules to church regulation as well, even if you can spot a few cases where a judge has ruled against a church or photographer.

   Like it or not, the country is always moving in a liberal direction.  Abraham Lincoln would be considered a racist today, but he was a liberal in his time.  Women being able to dress like they do now (including your own friends and relatives), would be considered very liberal, revealing attire a long time ago.  It wouldn’t surprise me if 2000 years from now, we’re all vegetarian.  Aside from “Liberal” being used as a smear term lately associated with conspiracy and agenda, we use the term “Progressive” recently because it’s about progress of our culture, rather than holding things back.

   Hope that makes sense.

   –Dan

5. Dr Michael Brown May 27th, 2009 1:05 am :

   Dan,

   Thanks for taking the time to answer. Obviously, you have to grant rights to marry to incestuous couples following your line of reasoning, which, to most people in society, is not just a slippery slope but already off the cliff. Also, if you argue that such couples (if heterosexual) would have to be sterilized, since there could be potential birth defects to the children, what of potential emotional and societal problems (such as an increase in gender confusion) for kids raised in same-sex homes (a well-documented phenomenon)? Would you then argue that same-sex households should not be allowed to have kids? (More on this below re: the harm done to society by same-sex marriage.)

   Re: the deliterious effects of same-sex marriage (or, more specifically, the destructive impact of homes which guarantee that a child will never have both a father and mother), there are many studies which demonstrate this point. Most recently, Frank Turek has laid out the arguments clearly — and without reference to the Bible — in Correct, But Not Politically Correct. I’d be happy to send you a copy if you’d be willing to read it.

   As for your view of human progress, I beg to demur. To be sure, there are some positive areas of progress in our society (e.g., the diminution of racism), but all in all, our society has never been more violent, never had less regard for human life (beginning in the womb), never seen more teen suicides and teens with STD’s — just to mention a few cases of note here in America. Worldwide, the 20th century was the bloodiest century of all time — with the rejection of God (as in Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China) playing a large part in this bloodbath. I would also question whether America is always moving in a liberal direction. There have been numerous cultural swings in our country, and some trends simply take longer to reverse. Plus, “liberal” is not always equal to “good.”

   A few more thoughts: First, numerous cases all over America indicate that gay activists do not simply want their “rights”; they want to take away the rights of those who differ with them. This is becoming increasingly common today, and even gay publications and gay legal scholars acknowledge that the legalizing of same-sex “marriage” could create real problems and conflicts for religious liberty. Second, I gladly affirm that God’s ways are best and that we do well to heed the ancient, proven paths. That being said, male-female marriage is the foundation of human society, something from which we dare not “progress,” and that holds true regardless of religious beliefs. 

   Thanks again for your civility in dialoguing about an emotionally-charged issue.

   Dr. Brown

6. Dan May 27th, 2009 1:59 am :

   Dr. Brown,

   Thanks for recognizing my response.  I believe in an emotionally charged issue, it is especially important to keep civil and impassive.  You can’t win an argument with a knock-out, only a handshake.  This is especially true when it comes to deciding what should be the law of the land.  While I do not live in Jesus as a savior, I do my best to live by the universal principles that Jesus taught, in regards to how to treat one another, loving one’s opponent (or enemy), and having non-judgment towards all.  Obviously, he and I would differ on theological issues.

   I would like to clarify that I do not think there is an automatic imminent approval of incestuous marriage, once same-sex marriage is allowed.  Even if philosophically, you say it’s a similar line of reasoning, the public aversion is extremely unlikely to approve of that measure.  Changing the definition of a marriage being “A man and woman who are unrelated marrying” to “Two people who are unrelated marrying” doesn’t have to involve a change to the “not related” principal in consequence.

   The fact that birth defects result from incest is enough to keep incestual marriage at bay in the law altogether.  Courts are also unlikely to take the time or resources to take a “We’ve been sterilized” case separately, for something that would be a very rare case anyway.  In general, the more complicated it is to legalize something, meaning needing a laundry list of contingencies, “who can do this, who can’t, do we need medical tests,” etc., the less likely it is to actually be legalized.  Gay marriage is remarkably simpler to put on the books than incestual marriage, for the pregancy possibilities alone.

   Am I saying it could never happen?  It’s not imposible, but there would be enough of a delay for it to be treated as a separate issue from homosexuality.

   I agree to your view that a child is best raised in a house with a stable mother and father as parents.  Unfortunately, with a divorce rate slightly over 50%, a stable house is far from guaranteed for anyone born to a heterosexual couple.  Is someone better off with two stable fathers than one mother and a revolving door of boyfriends?  This is where the concept gets foggier.  Is a child with a single mother better off than one that has two mothers in a loving committed relationship?  Not so obvious.  Also, as a “bonus,” though not really an argument, gay couples are far more likely to adopt special need children (both mentally and physically handicapped) and minority children that heterosexual couples tend to pass over when looking at an adoption

   While being raised in a homosexual couple’s house may present some confusion for children, you could say the same thing about a child’s racial identity being raised by a Japanese man and an African-American woman.  Keep in mind, that the research about how a child will react being raised by gay parents is (or was) being done in a time where there was a greater stigma to having gay parents.  If you’re made fun of for your parents being “faggots” and other kids aren’t allowed to go over to your house to play because their parents dont’ want a bad example set, of course you’re going to have some emotional issues.

   The children of citizens granted new rights will always face difficulties that they wouldn’t have faced in a simpler world.  When black children were first integrated into multi-racial schools, you can bet their self esteem took a hit when white students got preferential treatment, or they walked through protests of people hating their presence.

   What about twenty years after gay marriage is more accepted in every state?  You can bet the confusion will go down.  This is why any research about homosexuals being promiscuous and unhealthy, and having higher drug usage is meaningless.  Any oppressed group, especially one without full legal protections, has a higher risk of dangerous behavior.

   As for Frank Turek, if you truly believe that he has a convincing line of reasoning to a non-Christian, I’d be happy to read it.  I checked, and it’s only 143 pages, so that’s something I could definitely manage.  I should say though, I did read most of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist,” and found a lot of his (or Geisler’s) reasoning to be inadequate, despite being one of the best apologetics books.

   Thanks for the dialogue,

   –Dan

7. Marc Thomas May 27th, 2009 3:41 am :

   “the sale of caffeine pills because every once in a while, some yo-yo takes a dare and swallows the whole box and has a heart attack.”

   This actually made me laugh out loud but I had to stifle it because I’m in the office! Nice sentence. I don’t think I’ve ever heard any one say ‘yo-yo’ in that context.

8. Marc Thomas May 27th, 2009 3:50 am :

   “ In my Psych 101 class in college, research estimated that 3% of men, and a lesser amount of women, are homosexual (10% Kinsey study was found faulty).”
   
   I thought Kinsey rated people on a 1 through 5 scale and found that most people were in the middle - neither completely homo or heterosexual - this doesn’t have anything to do with your discussion but am I right in thinking this?

9. Dan May 27th, 2009 4:11 am :

   Marc,

   Kinsey is the modern Freud of sexual studies, meaning he was a huge figure in developing the science, but much of his stuff has been disproved, or rather, “improved” by modern scientific findings.  He did find that 10% of the population is homosexual, but the problem was he was only checking out the student groups. (Curiously, Fraternities were actually higher in gays than the general population).  I think he said most people fall in the middle, which is still pretty accurate today, though defining the spectrum is difficult.

   –Dan

10. Marc Thomas May 27th, 2009 4:13 am :

    That’s what I thought. Thanks for the answer. I have a newfound interest in Psychology recently after doing some reading for next semester - but it’s like a whole different world considering I’m used to political/historical arguments and theories!

    Marc

11. Doug MacLean May 27th, 2009 8:29 am :

    Dan wrote: “The children of citizens granted new rights will always face difficulties that they wouldn’t have faced in a simpler world.  When black children were first integrated into multi-racial schools, you can bet their self esteem took a hit when white students got preferential treatment, or they walked through protests of people hating their presence.”

    I was listening to a radio broadcast with author/philosopher Francis Beckwith yesterday who made some interesting comments that appear to dovetail with the comments Dan makes.  Notice Dan invokes the phrase “children of citizens granted new rights”.   Were the rights of the civil rights laws banning separate but equal facilities merely new laws or were they based in natural law?  Do we believe in rights that are self evident?  But if a a self evident law is reduced a formal codified law then there is a point where we can say the law is new, but only from the formal recognition of such law.  Beckwith argues that one of the challenges today is to recognize the distinction between natural law and egalitarian arguments.  Just as Dan argues incest naturally wrong and that corresponding birth defects are a natural deterrent, Beckwith argues that natural law drives the model of marriage being between one man and one woman, and that the differences between men and women compliment one another in our traditional notion of marriage. 

    Dan’s phrase “new rights” is a perfect illustration for demonstrating the failure to distinguish between egalitarian thinking and natural law.  Gay marriage is new only in the sense of governments creating these rights.  It is not new in the sense of natural law. Consistently, the gay rights arguments have been based upon egalitarian principles.  An example of an egalitarian principle is “equal pay for equal work”. 

    Gay activism equates gay rights with civil rights.  In other words, there is no difference between the civil rights for black children being integrated into schools and gay civil rights.  Dan, in fact in his post equates the ban on civil marriage as being the same as the ban on interracial marriage.  But this is painting with a brush stroke too large. To maintain such a view one must argue there are no differences between men and women.  Or, at least that the differences between men and women are equal to the skin color differences present in interacial marriage.

    The pull of the egalitarian argument can be very persuasive because it condemns in a color blind fashion. For instance, Dan suggests that permiscuity among gays should not be considered. The egalitarian argument supporting Dan’s position can be look the fact gay marriage is not accepted in most states.  Then, the argument goes how can gays be criticized for having relationships outside of marriage when they are denied access to the very institutition which provides an escape from promiscuity.  By definition all relationships are outside of marriage because the state has made them so by not recognizing gay marriage. 

    Egalitarianism is wrong not by what it considers, but by what it does not consider. Egalitarianism often becomes intolerant because it refuses to consider anything except the objects in its forumlation of its fairness doctrines.    The sexual revolution of the 60’s died out because of the consequences of multiple sex partners resulted in an epidemic of STD’s.  In the 70’s the gay community was hit with Aids epidemic, not as a result of the ban on gay marriage, but because of having multiple sex partners. 

    Dan actually equates race twice with sexual orentation twice in his post. He also does so in his example of the Japanese man and the African-American woman raising children comparing them to a gay couple.  I mention this to illustrate the centrality the egalitarian argument is to so much of the homosexual rights agenda. 

12. Marc Thomas May 27th, 2009 8:44 am :

    The answers and discussions on this magazine get better all the time. That one was a pleasure to read Doug and very interesting too!

    Perhaps the thing I find most annoying about the discussion of this topic is the ’spoiled child’ mentality. There used to be a comedy show in Britain with Harry Enfield dressed as a teenager called Kevin who had the catchphrase “It’s sooo unifaaair!” and he would say it to everything.

    Discussion on this topic often seems to have the same tone.

    Marc
    (heknocks.com)

13. Dan May 27th, 2009 7:30 pm :

    I think I’ve said my piece on the subject, so I’m gonna close my book for now on this thread.   This topic may obviously be something I comment on in later articles.  What I ask is if you just consider whether you’d be against gay marriage if the Bible had no mention of it being a problem. 

    Also, Marc, the “spoiled teenager” comparison has been made by other apologists and it never does anything but offend the honest people who feel threatened by your views.  J.P. Holding at Tektonics, the notoriously arrogant yet competent apologist will say things like “The atonement isn’t fair, WAHHHH!!!” to mock people who have a problem with them and their loved ones being tortured for eternity.  Of course people are going to find it self evident that eternal torture for your religious beliefs isn’t fair.

    Same with gay marriage.  Tell two men who are in love and have zero attraction to women that they can’t marry because your god say so, and of course they’ll say it isn’t fair.  It almost doesn’t require an explanation in their minds any more than you trying to explain why it’s ok for you to worship Jesus.  Take their right away legally, with a campaign funded by mostly religious groups, and of course you’ll have an emotional pain from them.  That’s anything but a spoiled teenager who doesn’t get the car for the night.  It’s closer the cry of a teenager who isn’t allowed out of the basement for a night. 

    Right or wrong, the peopel who are threatened are anything but “spoiled teenagers” and have a right to declare it’s unfair, even if they aren’t intellectually suave enough to articulate why.  Have some compassion.

    –Dan

Leave Comment

•    
•  


• Subscribe via Email Subscribe via RSS Follow on Twitter

• More from this category

  • Top Ten Gay Marriage False “Facts” Part 2
  • Top Ten Gay Marriage False “Facts” Part 1
  • Alliance Defense Fund to Appeal August 4th Prop 8 Ruling
  • Four Christians Arrested at Dearborn Arab Festival
  • Federal Funding for Abortion in Health Care Bill: An analysis
  • Nebraska Law Bans Late-Term Abortions Based on Fetal Pain
  • Important News on Healthcare Bill for North Carolina Residents
  • Reaction to Healthcare Executive Order on Abortion
  • Martin Ssempa on The Line of Fire - Listen Now
  • Martin Ssempa on Nightline Regarding Ugandan Bill
  • Archive for 'Law & Politics' »

• More from this category

  • NYC Isaiah 53 Campaign: Dr. Brown Responds to Counter-Missionaries
  • True Tolerance: The Truth About “Safe Schools” & What You Can Do
  • Can a Jew Believe in Jesus? Rabbi Shmuley vs Dr. Brown
  • Alliance Defense Fund to Appeal August 4th Prop 8 Ruling
  • VOR Quick Links: July 24, 2010
  • A War on Christianity in Britain?
  • GayAgendaQuotable
  • Joel Richardson: “Our Hands are Stained with Blood” & the UK Methodist Church
  • TheCall: Sacramento - Invitation from Dr. Michael L. Brown
  • TheCall Sacramento: September 3-4, 2010
  • Archive for 'News' »

• Facebook

• Writers

  FEATURED    Michael L. Brown    Frank Turek STAFF    Andrew Yeoman    Bryan Purtle    Daniel Kolenda    David Harwood EDITOR    Marcus French

  GUESTS    Joel Richardson    Noel Rabinowitz    Gordon MacIlvaine    Mark Armstrong CONTRIBUTORS    Christy Scott    David Arkley    Bethany French    Eric Gilmour    Marc Thomas

• Twitter Updates

  • "The sinner prides himself on his independence, completely overlooking the fact that he is the weak slave of sins that rule his members" AWT
    2 weeks ago
  • "To be perfectly frank ... the great majority of what's happening in American Christianity today is a poor joke." -DB http://fb.me/ydpxuZmi
    2 weeks ago
  • More updates...

• Browse Categories

  • Sexuality & Gender
  • Life & Family
  • Law & Politics
  • The Kingdom of God
  • Revolution & Justice
  • Philosophy & Science
  • Scripture
  • Persecution
  • Israel & The Jewish People
  • Culture

• Recent Comments

  • BP: Thanks for the comments, brothers. Yes Jeff, ‘prayer is the key’!
  • Jabez H.: Andrew,   Your insight…”a new move of His Kingdom about to break in,” of “Jesus...
  • Sheila: Hello to All, I am just reflecting on the environment in which the Apostles first spread the Gospel.  That the...
  • Jabez H.: “He was able to live in a distinctive manner, ‘full of grace and truth’, unmoved by criticism...
  • James: This is truly a wonderful article.

Join Dr. Brown's Email List

• Ministry Links

  • Ask Dr. Brown
  • Coalition of Conscience
  • FIRE School of Ministry
  • Line of Fire Radio
  • Real Messiah
  • Think it Thru TV

• Memberships

  

• Browse Archives

  | September 2010 | August 2010 | July 2010 | June 2010 | May 2010 | April 2010 | March 2010 | February 2010 | January 2010 | December 2009 | November 2009 | October 2009 | September 2009 | August 2009 | July 2009 | June 2009 | May 2009 | April 2009 | March 2009 | February 2009 | January 2009 | December 2008 | November 2008 | October 2008 | September 2008 |